I find great satisfaction at applying my intellect on problem-solving, but I'm also aware of the fact that my logical assumption works under the limitation of "garbage in, garbage out". And I just don't like to be fed with something that tasted like garbage, it doesn't help my problem-solving cause, especially when I can't get under the core issue if it was people related. I can deal with raw emotions far better than irrational thinking under the guise of bad logic.

We should just call garbage "treasure" and have a feast with it. Sure trash is trash, but if it's the only thing we have to deal with, we might as well use it to the best extent. My assumptions and logical fallacies+limitations are used to get me through each decision everyday. And, if that leads me to have a garbage life, then I'll just call it a treasured life. Well...on days that I'm happy...

All these logical fallacies are only instruments in pointless debates that can be solved through hard facts.

Statistics are king in debates; too bad no one refers to them properly or take the time to research them from an unbiased website.
Debating is just an euphemism for "Beating around the bush".

Abortion issue? Solve through chemistry and biology. Ex: To a certain fertilization period, the fetus (if you can call a clump of cell that) is not living. It doesnt have anything close to even resembling a single organ. Science can further prove what life is and what life isn't in further developments.

Creationism? *throws fossil at reader*

This is why I generally troll ED; too many people who take these topics to seriously when neither party is willing to fully yield or accept their opponent's views/attitude. It's always partial (10-20% at best) agreement or complete rejection. Those boasting of intelligence for participating in figurative "dogs sniffing each other's anus" are not really intelligent. Any intelligent person will say, "This is a waste of my time. Bye."

(For those attempting to state my comment is hypocritical; it's not. If you think so - congratulations, you're officially stupid.)

All these logical fallacies are only instruments in pointless debates that can be solved through hard facts.

Statistics are king in debates; too bad no one refers to them properly or take the time to research them from an unbiased website.
Debating is just an euphemism for "Beating around the bush".

Abortion issue? Solve through chemistry and biology. Ex: To a certain fertilization period, the fetus (if you can call a clump of cell that) is not living. It doesnt have anything close to even resembling a single organ. Science can further prove what life is and what life isn't in further developments.

Creationism? *throws fossil at reader*

This is why I generally troll ED; too many people who take these topics to seriously when neither party is willing to fully yield or accept their opponent's views/attitude. It's always partial (10-20% at best) agreement or complete rejection. Those boasting of intelligence for participating in figurative "dogs sniffing each other's anus" are not really intelligent. Any intelligent person will say, "This is a waste of my time. Bye."

(For those attempting to state my comment is hypocritical; it's not. If you think so - congratulations, you're officially stupid.)

You could say that logical fallacies are also instruments to avoid for personal growth. Imagine how the world would be like if the reasoning we used was "because I say so," or "well, that's what she said." If we stayed at an appeal to authority and hearsay reasoning, we can continually make avoidable mistakes on our pursuit to infallibility.

Although stats and facts are king, they can't rule any point of view; they simply state how the world is. If we try to get a point of view from them (stats and facts), we'll only get an "unbiased" (quotes represent my belief that nothing is unbiased) view and it will not tell us if it's even important to consider or if it should be considered at all. We determine what's important in our lives, so debating is a method to widen that "we", we are thinking about (hee hee hee I said "we, we").

Debates go on, not because of a lack of definition, but because the definition isn't substantial enough to give people a content feeling. I mean, when it's all said and done, we aren't just looking for "Yes, you're right" or "No, you're wrong" (Some people might) and BOOM - debates over. Generally we're looking for understanding on why one might be wrong or right. Imagine someone coming up to you and saying Science is wrong. You'd probably refer to all the cool things Science has done for us: all the technological advancements, ability to predict natural phenomenon (celestial movement, weather, etc.) and you might conclude that Science isn't wrong because the world is a seemingly better place. You might think that Science isn't wrong and therefore is right. If you are doing this, you're only looking at one side and concluding to another. Yes, Science is right because it gives us a lot of cool stuff to use, but that doesn't mean Science isn't wrong. Science is wrong because it can't tell us how to use all the cool stuff properly. It doesn't tell us whether texting will lead to sexting; it can't tell us that steroids will lead to cheating athletes; and it can't tell us that internet will lead to cyber-bullying.

Personally, your comment doesn't seem hypocritical. And, I can't call myself intelligent because I know there's a lot I need to learn, but I do want to say "This is a waste of my time. Bye." to fulfill your requirement of an intelligent person. Then again, I'm probably just stupid for saying so....

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

Wow, this examples cover 90% answers I've read in this forum. And the funny thing is that most people who use this tactics are now wholeheartedly denying it.

Denying or decrying? I don't recall a single poster here saying "Well I would never do that" or some such. Many are putting down the concept as immature. Myself I just intend to be more aware of my own posts. Except for my goodbyes. If I decide a poster is not worth my time, it implies a judgement of, if not the poster, then at least the way they've presented themselves here. I see no reason to be shy about expressing that judgement on my way out the door.

Wow, this examples cover 90% answers I've read in this forum. And the funny thing is that most people who use this tactics are now wholeheartedly denying it.

Denying or decrying? I don't recall a single poster here saying "Well I would never do that" or some such. Many are putting down the concept as immature. Myself I just intend to be more aware of my own posts. Except for my goodbyes. If I decide a poster is not worth my time, it implies a judgement of, if not the poster, then at least the way they've presented themselves here. I see no reason to be shy about expressing that judgement on my way out the door.

Another point. I don't see it as an Ad Hominen argument if I discuss a poster's approach to a debate. I'm not trying to score points when I try to pull someone to the curb over apparent tone and word choice. I honestly want to have sincere dialogue with people here. I don't feel it's an error to suggest that rewording their posts might open up opportunities for said dialogue.

Likewise, when grammar, spelling, or logic drop to the point where I am honestly confused about what a poster is trying to say I'll ask for clarification. Again I'm not trying to score points. I consider vagueness a crime in debate. it reduces something mildly informative and entertaining into a conversation about 'how long is a piece of string'. In short people: Fewer pronouns and other generalizations please. These lead to the wrong people getting the wrong message.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

I read that pyramid before I deleted it and to be honest, you had no point.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

I read that pyramid before I deleted it and to be honest, you had no point.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

I read that pyramid before I deleted it and to be honest, you had no point.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

I read that pyramid before I deleted it and to be honest, you had no point.

So everyone here is mad about having the strawman tactic used on them, and they froze up when it happened, not knowing how to respond.
So this thread is your way of settling a personal vendetta.

Technically, yes, but I have no idea what you mean by "personal vendetta." This is the Internet, holding a grudge against someone here would be irrational without actually knowing the individual beyond the computer. This thread is a way to educated and inform people on when an Ad hominem is being used and how to respond towards it.

You fail to see the point I was trying to make, in that long quote-pyramid you deleted.

I read that pyramid before I deleted it and to be honest, you had no point.

Remember the part where I pointed out his straw man?
That was it.

Yes, but the rest was really nothing.

I don't recall "point" being plural.
<:)

(Sorry, GintokISakata's starting to affect me)

Edit:
Btw, I mean the banned user.

Perhaps I'm mistaking the situation since some posts were deleted... but how does a straw man fallacy come into this discussion? Straw man and Ad Hominem are significantly different...